Isn't Everyone A Little Bit Autistic ?

Post Reply New Topic

No , thread over.

Of couse not since autism doesn't really exist.

^ Shh! Don't blow our cover

Well maybe it does a little bit.

^ Nice save

Great video!

Some people are "a bit autistic".
It's called BAP.

From what I've read , BAP is having more observable traits than the 'norm' and by definition you can't be autistic and have BAP.

Could you cite the definition?
"Subclinical autistic features" is, I think, the closest to being "a little bit autistic" possible.
Of course, not everyone is BAP.

Thanks for the video. It is great.

That was a good video. He makes some good illustrative comparisons.

Thanks Ferris. I've sent the link to a few pinheads already.

I don't know what you want magz , there is no clear boundary between autism and the BAP , People who have the BAP have more autistic traits than the average person but don't qualify for a diagnosis.

Maybe it's my black and white thinking but I think if you don't have enough traits etc for a diagnosis you are not autistic not even a little bit.

I more often hear AD(H)D misused. If someone forgets something during a busy day, they’ll laugh and say: “I’m SO ADD.” Yeah... I don’t think so.

I took someone seriously once and said: “Me too! I didn’t get diagnosed until I was an adult, though.” Then I got the blank stare. Doh!

Anyway, you must be a little autistic if you like to read, enjoy science museums, watch the Big Bang Theory, and don’t like specific foods (like Jello) because of their texture.

I promise I mean this in good faith, but why is the answer just full stop no?

Couldn't it be true that there is a general spectrum of strengths and weaknesses across certain traits, and that people who are substantially weak across several of these traits are what we refer to as 'autistic'? This would be explained by variations in neural pathways and the number of neurons present in different parts of the brain.

It seems like the video's primary argument against this way of thinking is that this trivializes the experiences of people who are autistic by comparing them with much less severe variations of autistic traits more commonly found in general.

I get that that sucks, but does that actually address the mechanics of the original argument?

I guess I think that it can all be true that 'autism' refers to people who are especially weak in certain traits, that these traits exist on a full spectrum which includes all people, and that autism is still a distinct thing and deserves its own understanding. If we take 100% as the peak person who has ever lived in terms of one of these traits, and 0 being the weakest person who has ever lived in terms of a trait, maybe the average ability is roughly a 50, and anyone below 20 is flagged as clearly being autistic. But surely there are 21s, 25s, even 30s who struggle.

I don't think this trivializes anything. A quantitative differences can become a qualitative difference if the quantitative difference is large enough. The only difference between a grain of sand and the Sahara desert is quantity, but they definitely have innumerable qualitative differences as well. I even think this is true with the paper cut analogy from the video. The difference between losing a limb and a cut is the size of the injury; a large enough piece of paper could cut one of your limbs off.

I do think that there are societal barriers that needlessly harm autistic people. I do think that we can do a much better job helping people bridge the gaps.

I don't mean to offend anyone, imply that autism isn't real, or marginalize anyone's experiences, so I hope I don't come off as antagonistic. I am genuinely curious to hear about what people have to say.

^ The term I hear misused the most is OCD.

I've only had the 'everyone's autistic' said a few times to me.

I'm guilty of using PTSD when I have no diagnosis.